I’d like to take a moment in this column today to offer rebuttals to some counterarguments I received from last week’s column regarding replacing taxation with fundraising.
Before I do so, however, let me just say how happy I am from the reaction I received.
When my work can spark discussions and dialogue, I couldn’t be more thrilled. It vindicates my writing. So, I am thankful to everyone who responded.
Now, among the first counterarguments I received were calls against the manner of using fundraising instead of taxation. A particularly irritating phrase along the lines of “it can’t work” was repeated.
Some said it couldn’t work because of the bystander effect; that is, too many people would just expect others to pay and wouldn’t pay themselves. Some said it couldn’t work because of the scale of some government programs; too many people relying on too much coverage, in other words.
Here’s what I have to say to those. Firstly, those who say it can’t be done ought to get out of the way of those doing it. This is in response to the worry of a bystander effect. Social entrepreneurship, whether through GoFundMe or any given private enterprise, has proven itself time and again to be an efficient and powerful manner of fixing a problem. And simple fundraising is a time-tested and true means.
Whether the problem is building water filtration plants in Africa, helping someone pay for a lawyer, National Public Radio holding a fund drive, the money is made and the issues are solved.
In NPR’s case, as I listened to the news the other morning, I heard them make around $1000 in as little as 45 minutes! Just by asking for it.
It can be done. The bystander effect is a small hurdle to jump over, and can easily be crossed with good marketing. If you make people want to do something, or make it their idea to do something, they will do it. No force is necessary.
As far as addressing the scale of taxation for government programs, I have two points to make. Firstly, someone brought up war. How would war be paid for through donation? Such a large, horrible, violent but sometimes necessary thing surely couldn’t get the funding needed simply by asking for it, right? Well, maybe.
During World War II, people were buying bonds to fund the war effort.
People were also willing to raise their own food in their backyards for the sake of freeing up agriculture for feeding the troops.
Because people cared about the war, enough people found enough worth in what was happening in Europe and the Pacific that they gave whatever they could. There was a very deep patriotic fervor that we can still feel today.
So, if war is worth funding, it will be funded. If not, then it won’t. Once again, it would be up to the fundraiser to convince people to give. No force is necessary.
And that is my second point. I don’t know how an emergency of a grand scale would be solved without utilizing taxed money. The thought baffles me. However, does my lack of imagination, or anybody else’s lack thereof, or a lack of innovation excuse using violence instead?
Just because I can’t think of a way to fix something does not mean I get to point a gun at someone’s head. I repeat, ignorance does not excuse violence.
Now that I’ve addressed those arguments, I’d like to try to offer another solution that is more middle-of-the-road, rather than (unfortunately) the apparently extreme option I gave last week.
Simply, here’s the compromise. Keep the method of tax collection the way it is, but treat taxes as restricted donations. That is, allow people to choose what their taxes go to.
Every so often, the IRS can send out a booklet showing where an individual’s money is going. At the end of the booklet, there can be a form to change the direction of spending.
Basically, if I don’t want my money funding unlawful war efforts in the Middle East, then I will not allow my money to go there.
If I prefer to have my money going to fixing infrastructure in my local area, then I will choose to send my money there.
That seems like a good compromise to me. The government can keep collecting taxes, but the people get a more direct say in how those taxes are spent. Fair?
One more thing; a clarification of my view of the world.
I don’t care for violence. I do not like the idea of people being hurt in any manner by anyone. So, I will always support the least violent option or solutions I can find.
I beg you to do the same. The world is already the least violent it has ever been. Let’s keep the trend going.
Give peace a chance.
Respond to Bryan at
